Retrieve a reading material's outline, units, and metadata by providing its ID to access structured learning content.
Read one material's outline, units and metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| material_id | Yes | Reading material ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | 原始 DeepTutor 工具返回值；其具体字段由对应 DeepTutor API 决定。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying what is read (outline, units, metadata), giving context about the return content. However, it does not disclose edge cases, potential errors, or any additional behavioral characteristics, so it is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence with no redundancy. The verb 'Read' is front-loaded, and the resource and scope are immediately clear. Every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplar of concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%—the parameter material_id is described as 'Reading material ID'. The description adds a slight implication that the material is a single entity, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('one material's outline, units and metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_reading_unit (which focuses on a single unit) and list_reading_materials (which lists all), even if not explicitly naming them. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'for a specific unit use get_reading_unit'). The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.